U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro caused a stir among Second Amendment supporters when she talked about a gun crackdown during a Fox News appearance.
Referring to the city’s recent decline in homicides, Pirro said:
“You bring a gun into the district, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this district, count on going to jail and hope you get the gun back.”
U.S. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., said Feb. 2 that he has a license to carry a firearm in Florida and Washington, D.C., and brings “a gun into the district every week.” The National Association for Gun Rights criticized Pirro for “threatening to arrest people for carrying in DC, even if they are law-abiding and licensed.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote Feb. 3, “Second Amendment rights are not extinguished just because an American visits DC.”
Pirro sought to clarify her position in follow-up social mediaposts Feb. 3, describing herself as a “proud supporter of the Second Amendment.” Washington, D.C., law requires handguns carried into the city be licensed with district police, she said.
“We are focused on individuals who are unlawfully carrying guns and will continue building on that momentum to keep our communities safe,” Pirro said.
Pirro’s Feb. 2 comments oversimplified the district’s gun laws. People can legally possess firearms by registering their weapons in the district, and obtaining a Washington, D.C., concealed carry permit would allow them to legally carry it outside their homes and places of business. The district does not recognize other states’ firearm registrations, but people can lawfully transport firearms through the district if they follow certain rules.
What are Washington, D.C.’s firearm registration requirements?
Washington, D.C., has historically had strict gun regulations. The district had essentially banned handguns for about30 years until 2008, when a Supreme Court decisionoverturned the rule.
Firearm registration is required for most gun owners, including district residents, business owners and both residents and nonresidents with concealed carry licenses.
The Metropolitan Police Department says people are eligible to register firearms if they meet certain requirements, including:
Being 21 or older (or 18 or older with a notarized statement from a guardian);
Completing the department’s free firearms training and safety class;
Having no convictions for certain weapons offenses;
Having no felony convictions;
And having no indictments for weapons offenses or violent crimes.
Government-issued service weapons do not have to be registered. Some people, including qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and on-duty active military members, are not required to register their firearms.
Firearm registration allows a person “to possess, but not carry, the gun,” said Andrew Willinger, a Georgia State University law professor and gun regulation expert.
Some weapons are ineligible to be registered, including: sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, .50 caliber BMG rifles and assault weapons.
What are the district’s open carry and concealed carry laws?
Openly carrying firearms is generally prohibited; people with valid firearm registrations can carry their firearms in their homes or places of business. They also can use their firearms for lawful recreational purposes — such as at firearms training, safety classes or at a gun range — and transport them within legal limits.
Can nonresidents get a concealed carry license in Washington, D.C.?
Yes, nonresidents can obtain concealed carry licenses — and they need licenses to legally carry their firearms.
“If a nonresident brings a gun into D.C. and does not have a D.C. permit, that is unlawful regardless of whether the gunowner is licensed in his or her state of residence or law-abiding,” Willinger said in an email.
Can nonresidents bring their firearms in or through the district?
Yes, under certain conditions.
Under federal law, it is generally legal for people to transport guns from one state where they can be lawfully possessed to another state where they can be lawfully possessed. People do not have to comply with gun laws in each state they pass through, as long as the firearm is not loaded or readily accessible, Willinger said.
In the district, nonresidents without a Washington, D.C., concealed carry license can bring firearms in vehicles as long as they are unloaded and as long as the firearms and ammunition are not readily accessible. If transporting firearms in ways other than in vehicles, they must be unloaded and stored in locked containers.
If a nonresident travels through the district with a firearm that isn’t registered in Washington, D.C., they should go straight to and from their destination.
Nonresidents traveling to or from a lawful recreational firearm-related activity don’t need to register their firearm, so long as they can present proof that they legally possess their firearm in their home state and that they are on the way to or from that activity.
Has Minneapolis upended politics and is there now a crack in the wall between cannabis sue and gun rights? There is pressure on the administration.
For decades, the relationship between cannabis use and gun ownership in the United States has been shaped by conflicting legal frameworks and cultural trends. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law has prohibited individuals who are “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms, a rule that historically included cannabis because it remained classified as a Schedule I drug. As more states have moved to legalize medical and recreational marijuana use, this federal prohibition has produced a legal disconnect: people who legally use cannabis under state law can be barred from firearm rights under federal law, while gun ownership, protected by the Second Amendment and upheld in key Supreme Court decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller, has remained a deeply entrenched individual right.
Recent events in Minnesota have intensified national conversations about gun use, public safety, and federal regulation. The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent sparked widespread protest and media attention, thrusting discussions about when and how guns should be carried into the spotlight. The current administration’s response — including comments from national leaders suggesting that certain forms of gun carry at protests may be inappropriate — has prompted debate and scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle, especially in a state with permissive carry laws. The President’s remarks Good “should not have been carrying a gun,” despite Minnesota’s legal provisions for open and concealed carry, have underscored a broader willingness among federal officials to reconsider how guns are used in public spaces and under what circumstances.
Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks
Cannabis use and gun rights have intersected not just legally but culturally. While states such as Minnesota grapple with questions of public safety following high-profile shootings, federal courts are taking up cases that challenge the application of firearm prohibitions to marijuana users. Several appellate courts have ruled barring state-sanctioned cannabis consumers from owning guns could violate the Second Amendment, creating legal pressure that may culminate in a decisive Supreme Court ruling. Advocates argue these challenges underscore the outdated nature of federal cannabis policy in a nation where a majority of states have embraced some form of legalization.
That uncertainty has also been visible inside the administration itself. In recent press briefings, the White House press secretary struggled to clearly articulate a definitive position on gun control, particularly when pressed on how new restrictions might apply to lawful gun owners versus criminal misuse. Repeated attempts to clarify whether the administration favors broader limits on public carry, enforcement changes, or legislative reform yielded cautious, and at times contradictory, responses. The moment underscored the administration’s difficulty in balancing public safety concerns with constitutional protections, revealing a lack of consensus on how far any restructuring of gun policy should go.
Amid these legal and political tensions, leaders in the current administration have repeatedly appeared on national news outlets discussing the need to rethink how guns are carried and used by average citizens. Some administration figures have indicated that the nation should consider stricter guidelines for public gun carry, citing recent violence and demanding a reevaluation of existing policies. This shift has sparked sharp disagreements with traditional gun rights advocates.
The National Rifle Association, for example, publicly criticized comments from federal officials seemed to question the rights of lawful gun owners, calling such statements “dangerous and wrong” and stressing law-abiding citizens deserve their full Second Amendment protections.
At the same time, the broader national dialogue remains unsettled. With public opinion sharply divided, legal challenges pending in the courts, and political leaders offering competing visions for the future of gun policy, it is far from clear where the balance will ultimately fall. As lawmakers, judges, and citizens continue to hash out these issues, the evolving conversation about cannabis use, gun ownership, and public safety highlights lingering tensions in American law and society.
Saturday’s fatal shooting of a man by a Border Patrol agent in Minneapolis has renewed a debate over the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws. But this time, the political roles are reversed.
The right to bear arms has been a big Republican Party issue for decades. Conservative politicians have strongly defended the Second Amendment by successfully passing gun rights laws, such as concealed carry, in every state. Minneapolis shooting victim Alex Pretti was legally carrying a firearm. But top Trump administration officials say he did not have a right to do so.
“You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It is that simple,” said Director Kash Patel.
However, President Donald Trump supported Kyle Rittenhouse after he shot and killed two men who tried grabbing his gun during protesters following a shooting involving police. Additionally, some Jan. 6 rioters were armed, and many Republicans supported a Missouri couple who pointed their firearms at protesters after George Floyd’s killing.
Alex Pretti seen in bystander video Saturday morning in Minneapolis, left, and Kyle Rittenhouse at the Turning Point USA America Fest 2021 event Monday, Dec. 20, 2021, in Phoenix.
(Bystander video)/(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
The killing spurred notable tension with the GOP’s long-standing support for gun rights. Officials say Pretti was armed, but no bystander videos that have surfaced so far appear to show him holding a weapon. The Minneapolis police chief said Pretti had a permit to carry a gun.
Yet administration officials, including Noem and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have questioned why he was armed. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Bessent said that when he has attended protests, “I didn’t bring a gun. I brought a billboard.”
Such comments were notable for a party where support for the Second Amendment’s protection of gun ownership is foundational. Indeed, many in the GOP, including Trump, lifted Kyle Rittenhouse into prominence when the then-17-year-old former police youth cadet shot three men, killing two of them, during a 2020 protest in Wisconsin against police brutality. He was acquitted of all charges after testifying that he acted in self defense.
In the wake of Pretti’s killing, gun rights advocates noted that it is legal to carry firearms during protests.
“Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms – including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said in a statement. “These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed.”
In a social media post, the National Rifle Association said “responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is often critical of the White House, said “carrying a firearm is not a death sentence.”
“It’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right,” he said, “and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government.
The second-ranking Justice Department official said he was aware of reports that Pretti was lawfully armed.
“There’s nothing wrong with anybody lawfully carrying firearms,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. “But just make no mistake about it, this was an incredibly split-second decision that had to be made by ICE officers.”
“The height of hypocrisy which continues out of the White House, scrambling to find some reason to show why these agents were justified,” said former Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin.
Durkin says the hypocrisy surrounding the Minneapolis case will continue to fracture the Republican Party. While it took over 20 years to pass a restricted concealed carry law in Illinois, residents have a right to carry a loaded firearm to a protest. Minnesota shares the same rights.
“Mr. Pretti was not violating the law in terms of the Second Amendment. He had a protected right, and the law in Minnesota did not prohibit him from carrying a firearm,” said Rob Chadwick with the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.
But Chadwick, a former FBI agent, says the law gets dicey if the armed person inserts themselves in a law enforcement operation. USCCA and a growing number of Republicans are calling for a full investigation into Pretti’s death.
“When you take that step and get involved physically in a law enforcement action, it is incredibly dangerous and unintended consequences do happen,” Chadwick said.
Meanwhile, White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt says Trump absolutely supports the Second Amendment for law-abiding Americans, but not for people who impede immigration enforcement operations.
ABC Chicago Station WLS and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Last month, in the wake of a mass shooting in Minneapolis that investigators say was carried out by a transgender woman, the Department of Justice began looking into ways to strip trans Americans of the right to bear arms. One senior Justice Department official told CNN that the goal is “to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.” (It should be noted that mental illness alone does not currently disqualify someone from owning a gun; federal law stipulates that only those who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, or who have been declared mentally incompetent by a legal authority, can be prohibited from gun ownership.) Upon hearing the news about the internal D.O.J. discussions, the National Rifle Association issued a statement declaring its opposition to limiting the Second Amendment rights of any law-abiding citizen—though the N.R.A. did not explicitly name trans people. For even the most full-throated gun advocates, trans people are often the awkward exception: about a month before he was killed, Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist, called for a ban on trans gun ownership. “If you are crazy enough to want to hormonally and surgically ‘change your sex,’ ” he posted on X, “you have a mental disorder, and you are too crazy to own a firearm.”
As the culture wars erupt into violent extremism, “gender ideology”—which the Trump Administration defines as “the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex”—has gone from being seen as “woke” to being framed by members of the political right as one of the sources of America’s evils, including its violence. Most violence, political or otherwise, is not perpetrated by trans people. In fact, trans people are four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime. Yet right-wing commentators have fixated on two incidents involving shooters who were described by authorities as trans—a mass shooting at the Covenant School, in Nashville, in 2023, and the more recent shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, in Minneapolis—as evidence of “trans terrorism,” in the words of the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh. The Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank responsible for Project 2025, recently issued a call for the F.B.I. to designate “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” as a domestic terror threat. In both the case of the Nashville shooting and the Minneapolis attack, authorities have not shared any evidence indicating that the shooters’ respective gender identities drove their horrific actions. There was widespread speculation that the shooter at the Covenant School, who had previously been a student there, was motivated by anti-religious resentment. But an investigation conducted by the Metro Nashville Police Department concluded that the shooter, who had enjoyed their time at the school, had been motivated by fame.
Almost immediately after Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah, three weeks ago, conservative figures began speculating that the shooter was either trans or had murdered Kirk because of his anti-trans rhetoric. (Kirk was talking about trans mass shooters just before he was shot.) Republicans quickly consolidated Democrats, Antifa, and trans people into one radical enemy. “I mean, give me a fucking break,” the congresswoman Nancy Mace said on Capitol Hill. “This guy’s talking about mass trans violence, tranny violence—I’m not going to filter myself—and got shot in the neck like that.” The day after Kirk’s death, the Wall Street Journal reported that the ammunition used in the shooting had been engraved with expressions of transgender “ideology”—a claim that was refuted by Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, and that the Journal later walked back. First, conservatives said the shooter was trans; then they said the bullets were trans. Now they’ve seized on reports that Tyler Robinson, the suspect in custody, had a trans partner or roommate. As always, their aims are a moving target, with a common enemy.
The issue of minority gun ownership has long been fraught. In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney argued in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black people should not be recognized as citizens because it would give them the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they want.” Even after Black people became citizens entitled to Second Amendment rights, they often had to deal with discriminatory gun laws limiting their access to firearms. Despite his house being firebombed in 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr., was unable to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Because of this, guns would ultimately become a key component of the Black Power movement. Activists carried guns for community patrols, self-defense, and as a show of force. In May, 1967, the Black Panthers entered the California Capitol Building with shotguns, pistols, and rifles to protest stricter gun-control laws. In recent years, Black and L.G.B.T.Q.gun ownership has been on the rise, with individuals in both groups citing the marked increase in hate crimes as a primary motivator for arming themselves in self-defense.
Many trans gun owners I spoke with were anxious about the Administration potentially limiting their access to firearms. “The trans people I know, both gun owners and others, see the prospect of the D.O.J. taking trans people’s guns as a prelude to atrocity,” Eden Fenn, a young trans woman, told me. She called herself “the definition of a reluctant gun owner,” describing her ownership as a precautionary measure against the potential of anti-trans violence. Similarly, Margaret Killjoy, a trans musician and writer, told me that she obtained a gun permit after being doxed by far-right extremists.
I’m not a gun owner, but I understand the instinct: after the shooting at Pulse night club, in 2016, it occurred to me that I might want to learn how to use a gun for my own protection. It took me several years to overcome my squeamishness, and I finally went to a gun range for the first time this past summer. Aside from the employees staffing the front desk, I was the only woman there. My instructor told me to be careful of gunshot residue, since I was showing slightly more skin than the men in camouflage and hockey jerseys next to me. Over all, it was a surprisingly mundane outing. I fired a few rounds and then I left.
This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch dig into Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R–Mo.) speech at the National Conservatism Conference, where he denounced artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies as threats to liberty. They debate why MAGA populists are embracing anti-tech rhetoric, how this mirrors parts of the labor left, and what it means for President Donald Trump’s simultaneous push for AI investment and closer ties with Silicon Valley.
Our editors also break down the latest jobs report, analyzing labor force participation, manufacturing losses, and whether tariffs and immigration limits are holding back growth. They then turn to New College of Florida’s talk of privatization following its clash with Gov. Ron DeSantis, and what that would mean for university governance. A listener question prompts each editor to explain how they came to identify as libertarian and why the label matters to their work. Finally, the panel examines the Justice Department’s move to ban transgender Americans from gun ownership.
How can we make The Reason Roundtable better? Take our listener survey and get a chance to win $300: http://reason.com/podsurvey
You believe in limited government and support organizations that champion the ideals of a free society. But have you ensured that your charitable giving will leave a lasting legacy of liberty? Without a plan in place, your charitable legacy could fade—or worse, be redirected to causes that don’t align with your values. At DonorsTrust, they help you secure your philanthropic vision for the long term. With a donor-advised fund, you can ensure that the groups you care about continue to receive support, even beyond your lifetime. And unlike other donor-advised funds, DonorsTrust respects your libertarian principles and ensures your charitable capital remains committed to advancing individual liberty. Your giving should reflect your values—not just today, but for years to come. Your Vision. Your Values. Your Impact. Go to http://DonorsTrust.org/Reason to ensure your philanthropy continues to champion liberty for generations to come.
Brooklyn Bedding handcrafts every mattress in their Arizona factory, cutting out the middleman to deliver top-tier quality, honest pricing, and true American craftsmanship. With options for every body, every sleep style, and even hard-to-find sizes, you can find your perfect match in under two minutes with the Brooklyn Bedding Sleep Quiz. Hot sleeper? Their GlacioTex™ covers and CopperFlex™ foam help keep you cool all night. They are endorsed by the American Chiropractic Association for spinal alignment and back health, and they are 100 percent fiberglass-free for added peace of mind. Every mattress comes with a 120-night comfort trial, giving you the freedom to keep it if you love it or exchange it if you don’t. Go to http://brooklynbedding.comand use promo code REASON at checkout for 30 percent off sitewide!
The Trump administration’s reported proposal to ban transgender people from owning guns has drawn condemnation from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and every other notable gun-rights group in the country.
The Daily Wirefirst reported Thursday, based on anonymous Justice Department sources, that senior officials in the department are considering using their rulemaking authority to declare that trans people are mentally ill, stripping them of their Second Amendment rights. Other major news outlets rereported the story.
The Justice Department hasn’t issued any such rule yet, or attached a name to any of the statements leaking out to the press, so this all amounts to more of a trial balloon. But as Reason‘s Jacob Sullum wrote, the idea is “legally loony.” There is no statutory authority for such a categorical decree. Even if Congress did pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional based on current Supreme Court precedent and prevailing circuit court opinions.
If the Trump administration was hoping to get a pass from gun-rights groups over these small details, it will be disappointed. Categorical bans—issued by executive fiat no less—have been a red line for pro-Second Amendment groups and lawmakers for decades.
“The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans to purchase, possess and use firearms,” the organization posted Friday on X. “The NRA does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.”
Stephen Gutowski, an independent journalist covering gun rights and the gun industry, reported that the NRA wasn’t alone: “Every major gun-rights group has now spoken against the idea of the DOJ trying to strip trans people of their gun rights en masse,” he posted on X Friday.
Gutowski’s tally included Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
“Disarming trans individuals based purely on their self-identification flies in the face of the Constitution and the current administration’s purported support for the Second Amendment,” the Second Amendment Foundation said in a statement to Newsweek. “Beyond the bad policy and constitutional infirmities of such ‘considerations’ the Department of Justice has no authority to unilaterally identify groups of people that it would like to strip of their constitutional rights. SAF sincerely hopes that the reports of such considerations by the DOJ are inaccurate, as the policy reportedly being contemplated is worthy of the strongest possible condemnation and legal action.”
Second Amendment groups often remind gun-control advocates that, historically, things don’t tend to go well for minority groups after they’re disarmed by the government, so it’s good to see them presenting a united front against just such a proposal.
If the Trump Administration has any ability to read the room, it will quietly forget about its idea to illegally strip a group of Americans of their constitutional right to bear arms.
Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz announced on Tuesday plans to hold a special legislative session to introduce new statewide gun control measures, including a ban on “assault weapons.” This comes in the wake of last week’s tragic mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, which left 21 injured and 2 dead.
Despite assurancesthat the proposals would not infringe upon Second Amendment rights, Walz’s proposed measures raise significant constitutional concerns. In addition to a ban, Walz proposed a law that would mandate stricter standards for safe storage, increased funding for mental health treatment, and further expansion of Minnesota’s 2023 red flag laws.
The governor’s statements drew mixed reactions, mostly along partisan lines, with state Democrats largely supportive. Echoing Walz’s call, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, and eight other city leaders urged repeal of Minnesota’s 1985 preemption statute, which bars local governments from enacting stricter gun laws than the state. Even if broader legislation fails, they insist cities must be able to act.
State Republicans, despite expressing their willingness to work with Democrats to address gun violence, have predictably voiced skepticism toward the proposed measures, citing concerns about potential civil liberties violations, questioning the governor’s intentions, and ultimately doubting that a bipartisan resolution could be reached.
Walz still seems willing to work with Republicans. But whatever kind of legislation the special session produces—particularly restrictions and/or local bans on common firearms—will likely face constitutional challenges if ratified.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen established that all state and local-level gun regulations must align with firearm laws that were in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing. Since then, courts have overturned various state-level gun control laws, including bans on so-called “assault weapons,” for not reflecting that standard—among them, Illinois’ attempted prohibition of semiautomatic rifles and Tennessee’s ban on concealed carry in public parks.
In Minnesota, these complexities extend further. The push to repeal the state’s preemption law—designed to prevent municipalities from passing stricter firearm ordinances than the state—would unravel decades of legal consistency, exposing residents to a fragmented landscape of local regulations and expanding the potential for municipal overreach. However, concerns over state overreach are not merely theoretical.
Since red flag laws first emerged in 1999, civil liberties advocates have warned of due process erosion, as courts have authorized firearm seizures through ex parte orders with minimal evidentiary standards. In many cases, individuals lose their constitutional rights without being criminally charged or having a chance to dispute allegations. This lack of clarity can lead to deadly misunderstandings, as in 2018, when Maryland resident Gary Willis was killed by police while being served a red flag order issued without his knowledge. Extreme though it was, the case underscores how such laws can escalate risk and undermine core constitutional protections.
Rather than address these deficiencies, Walz appears ready to double down, suggesting not only an expansion to his earlier red flag laws, but also broader state authority to disarm citizens based on subjective assessments of future risk. If the current trajectory continues, Minnesota may soon serve as a national test case for how far civil liberties can be curtailed in the name of safety.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal ban on firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
The 8-1 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may-consistent with the Second Amendment-be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” Roberts wrote. “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”
In other words, the court held someone in those circumstances could be temporarily disarmed.
The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, marked a major test for the court since its decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights and created a new framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases.
The 1994 federal statute at the center of the case requires thousands of domestic violence restraining orders issued each year by federal and state judges to be reported to the national background check system, which would serve as a basis to deny a firearm sale.
“Taken together, the surety and going armed laws confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed,” Roberts wrote.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
DENVER — In November 2024, Colorado voters could decide whether marijuana use will continue to prevent applicants from receiving concealed carry permits.
Guns for Everyone, a pro-gun rights organization that trains for concealed carry permits and opposes gun restrictions, has begun the process of putting the question as an initiative on the ballot next year. It will have a hearing before Colorado’s Legislative Council Staff (LCS) on Tuesday.
Edgar Antillon, co-founder of Guns for Everyone, said he views it as a “freedom issue” given that Colorado legalized recreational use of marijuana more than a decade ago.
“It’s one of those silly things that has been going on for a while. We’ve legalized marijuana, but we don’t give [users] the ability to defend themselves,” Antillon said. “Alcohol users get to defend themselves. Why not marijuana users?”
Under current state law, sheriffs in Colorado cannot issue a permit to carry to a person who is “ineligible” under federal law. Because federal law still lists marijuana as a controlled substance, this prevents Colorado sheriffs from issuing concealed carry permits to anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
The proposed change to the law, as it is currently written in the proposed ballot initiative, would amend Colorado law to include that “a sheriff shall not use a permit applicant’s lawful use of marijuana … as a basis for denying the applicant a permit.”
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public in and around Albuquerque drew an immediate court challenge from a gun-rights group Saturday, as legal scholars and advocates said they expected.
The National Association for Gun Rights and Foster Haines, a member who lives in Albuquerque, filed documents in U.S. District Court in New Mexico suing Lujan Grisham and seeking an immediate block to the implementation of her order.
The challenge was expected, but even so, the governor’s action Friday was an attempt to “move the debate,” said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount’s Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, after Lujan Grisham announced that she was temporarily suspending the right to carry firearms in her state’s largest city and surrounding Bernalillo County.
The governor, a Democrat, said the 30-day suspension, enacted as an emergency public health measure, would apply in most public places, from city sidewalks to parks.
She said state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations and carry a fine of up to $5,000.
Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, who once served as a Democratic party leader and was appointed by Lujan Grisham, on Saturday joined Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Police Chief Harold Medina saying they wouldn’t enforce the order.
“As an officer of the court, I cannot and will not enforce something that is clearly unconstitutional,” said Bregman, the top prosecutor in the Albuquerque area. “This office will continue to focus on criminals of any age that use guns in the commission of a crime.”
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he was uneasy about how gun owners might respond.
“I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts,” Allen said, “as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”
Medina noted that Albuquerque police made more than 200 arrests of suspects in killings in the last two years. Police spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said enforcing the order also could put Albuquerque police in a difficult position with a U.S. Department of Justice police reform settlement.
Lujan Grisham said she was was compelled to act following recent shootings including the death this week of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium and gunfire last month that killed a 5-year-old girl who was asleep in a motor home. The governor also cited the shooting death in August of a 13-year-old girl in Taos County.
Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham talks prior to President Joe Biden speaking about the economy at Arcosa Wind Towers factory Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2023, in Belen, N.M. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
“No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed,” the governor’s order states.
Levinson told The Associated Press Friday over the phone that Lujan Grisham would draw a court fight, saying the governor was “bumping up against the Second Amendment, no doubt about it.”
“And we have a very conservative Supreme Court that is poised to expand Second Amendment rights,” Levinson added.
Dudley Brown, founder and president of the Colorado-based gun-rights group, called the governor’s action unconstitutional.
“She needs to be held accountable for stripping the God-given rights of millions away with the stroke of a pen,” he said in a statement announcing the lawsuit and request for a restraining order. A court hearing was not immediately set.
The top Republican in the New Mexico Senate, Greg Baca of Belen, also denounced Lujan Grisham’s order as an infringement on the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. Dan Lewis, who serves on the nonpartisan Albuquerque City Council, called the order an unconstitutional edict.
Lujan Grisham said gun owners still would be able to transport guns to private locations such as a gun range or gun store if the firearm is in a container or has a trigger lock or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.
The governor’s order calls for monthly inspections of firearms dealers statewide to ensure compliance with gun laws and for the state Department of Health to compile a report on gunshot victims at hospitals that includes age, race, gender and ethnicity, along with the brand and caliber of firearm involved.
Levinson said she was not aware of any other governor taking a step as restrictive as Lujan Grisham. But she pointed to a proposal by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to amend the U.S. Constitution to harden federal gun laws.
“I don’t think it will be a political loss for (Lujan Grisham) to be overturned,” Levinson said. “She can say she did everything she could but was stopped by the courts.”
Jacob Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law who studies the Second Amendment, noted that the Supreme Court, in the June 2022 Bruen case, expanded the right of law-abiding Americans to carry guns in public for self-defense.
He said that ruling takes away the ability to take into account arguments about a compelling government interest, like the gun violence that Lujan Grisham said prompted her order. Now, judges must solely rely on whether any similar historical examples exist.
“They can’t assess whether or not this is going to reduce gun violence. They can’t assess whether or not there are other alternatives that government could have done,” Charles said. He later added, “What it means is that contemporary costs and benefits aren’t part of the analysis.”
Ritter reported from Las Vegas. Stern and Sonner reported from Reno, Nevada. Associated Press writers Rio Yamat in Las Vegas, Morgan Lee in Santa Fe., New Mexico; Terry Tang in Phoenix and Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona, contributed to this report. Stern is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America places journalists in local newsrooms across the country to report on undercovered issues.
She was very late. A man named Barry was compelled to lead the room in a rendition of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” to stall for time. But when she did arrive, the tardiness was forgiven and the Cobb County Republican Party’s November breakfast was made new. She wasn’t greeted. She was beheld, like a religious apparition. Emotions verged on rapture. Later, as she spoke, one man jumped to his feet with such force that his chair fell over. Not far away, two women clung to each other and shrieked. I was knocked to my seat when a tablemate’s corrugated-plastic FLOOD THE POLLS sign collided inadvertently with my head. Upon looking up, I came eye-level with a pistol tucked into the khaki waistband of an elderly man in front of me. “She is just so great,” I heard someone say. “I mean, she really is just amazing.”
Explore the January/February 2023 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Marjorie Taylor Greene arrived in Congress in January 2021, blond and crass and indelibly identified with conspiracy theories involving Jewish space lasers and Democratic pedophiles. She had barely settled into office before being stripped of her committee assignments; she has been called a “cancer” on the Republican Party by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; and she now has a loud voice in the GOP’s most consequential decisions on Capitol Hill because her party’s leaders know, and she knows they know, that she has become far too popular with their voters to risk upsetting her.
Nobody saw her coming. Not even Greene saw Greene coming.
II.
She was a product, her family loved to say, of the “Great American Dream.” There was a three-story home at the end of a shaded driveway in the small town of Cumming, Georgia, north of Atlanta; there was a finished basement in which Marge—and that is what she was called, Marge—and her friends would gather in faded nylon one-pieces after a swim in Lake Lanier.
Her father was Robert David Taylor, a Michigan transplant for whom a three-story home had never been guaranteed but who had believed acutely in its possibility. Bob Taylor was the son of a steel-mill worker; he had served in Vietnam; he had hung siding to pay for classes at Eastern Michigan University. He had married the beautiful Carrie Fidelle Bacon—“Delle,” to most people, but he called her Carrie—from Milledgeville, Georgia, and rather than continue with college, he had become a contractor and built a successful company called Taylor Construction. For Marjorie Taylor, the first of Bob and Delle’s two children, the result was a world steeped in a distinctly suburban kind of certainty: packed lunches and marble kitchen countertops, semiannual trips to the beach, and the conviction that everything happens for a reason.
She came of age in Cumming, the seat of Forsyth County. With her turtleneck sweaters and highlighted mall bangs, Marge Taylor might have been any other teenage girl in America. At South Forsyth High School, class of 1992, she was a member of the Spanish club and a manager of the soccer team. She may not have been voted Most Spirited, but she dressed to theme during homecoming week; she may not have had the Best Sense of Humor, but by graduation she had amassed her share of inside jokes with friends. “Shh … It’s the people outside!” her senior quote reads in the high-school yearbook. “Run the cops are here! I’m gone!!” She was “nice to everyone,” “upbeat,” with “tons of confidence,” recalls Leslie Hamburger, a friend of hers and her brother David’s. “I have nothing but good memories.” The good-but-not-great student was hardly, in other words, an overachieving scold already plotting her ascent to Washington. It’s difficult to imagine an 18-year-old Ted Cruz bothering with something called the Hot Tuna Club.
Illustration by Eric Yahnker. Source image: South Forsyth High.
Forsyth County was a calm, quiet, ordered place. But it had a history. In September 1912, an 18-year-old white girl was found bloodied and barely breathing in the woods lining the Chattahoochee River; she died two weeks later. Within 24 hours of her discovery, four Black men had been arrested and charged with assault. A white mob dragged one of the suspects from his cell and hanged him from a telephone pole. Two others were tried and executed. White residents then decided to undertake nothing short of a racial cleansing. On horseback, armed with rifles and dynamite, they drove out virtually all of the county’s Black population—more than 1,000 people. So successful were their efforts that the county would experience the modern civil-rights era vicariously at best. There were no whites only signs to fuss over in Cumming, because there were no Black people to keep separate.
In January 1987, a white resident organized a “Walk for Brotherhood” to commemorate what had happened 75 years earlier. The project was complicated by the immediate wave of death threats he received. Arriving from Atlanta, the civil-rights leader Hosea Williams called Forsyth the most racist county in the South. Oprah Winfrey came down to cover the event. But most people in Forsyth ignored the whole affair; broach it in conversation, and you were considered a pot-stirrer. George Pirkle, the county’s resident historian, was reminded of this as recently as 2011, when he readied for publication TheHeritage Book of Forsyth County. He told the mayor of Cumming about his plans to include the region’s Black history in the volume, and got an incredulous response: “Well, why in the world would you want to do that?” As Martha McConnell, the local historical society’s co-president then and now, told me, the subtext was clear: “Don’t be starting things.”
In the end, the Heritage Book did not go starting things. Look through it today and you will see the neatly arranged census data that cuts off at 1910. To include 1920, of course, would have revealed that the Black population was suddenly gone. To go beyond 1920 would have revealed that the Black population never came back.
All of which is to say that Marge Taylor’s worldview was shaped in a community artificially devoid of sociocultural conflict, a history scrubbed of tension. That’s the basic attitude here toward the past, Pirkle told me: “If you don’t talk about it, it goes away.”
Decades later, as they considered her scorched-earth rise to power—the conspiracy theories and racist appeals and talk of violence against Democratic leaders—some of her teachers would find themselves wondering how they’d failed to notice the young Marge Taylor. How was it that they had no memory of her holding forth in civics class, or waging a boisterous campaign for student office? How could it possibly be that in fact they had no memory of her at all?
III.
She did as she was supposed to do, graduating from South Forsyth High and then packing up and moving an hour and a half away, to Athens, for four years at the University of Georgia. She would flit all but anonymously through the campus of 20,000 undergraduates. For Marge Taylor, UGA was about becoming the first in her family to graduate from college—setting herself up to run Taylor Construction. Almost certainly it was also about meeting a nice man. Perry Clarke Greene was a nice man. Three years her senior, he was tall and earnest and came from Riverdale. He, too, was in the university’s Terry College of Business. They exchanged vows the summer before her senior year, in 1995.
Among the things I do not know about Marjorie Taylor Greene—she would not speak with me for this story—is what her wedding was like. A newspaper account, if it exists, has yet to turn up. I do not know whether she stood before an altar laden with white gladioli, as her grandmother once had, or whether the reception was a small affair at her parents’ home in Cumming or something bigger somewhere else. I also do not know whether, on that day, she was happy: whether the quiet and respectable life that now unfurled before the new Mrs. Perry Greene felt like enough.
The young couple moved into a three-bed, three-bath colonial with symmetrical shrubbery in the north-Atlanta suburb of Roswell. Perry Greene became an accountant at Ernst & Young, and Marjorie Greene became pregnant. In January 1998, she smiled alongside the other mothers with tired eyes and loose clothing as they learned to exercise and massage their newborns in the North Fulton Regional Hospital’s “Mother Lore” class.
It wasn’t long before Perry started working for his father-in-law as general manager of the family business. After facilitating the sale of Taylor Construction, in 1999, he moved on to Taylor Commercial, a former division of the company, which specialized in siding for apartment complexes and subsidized-housing projects. Soon after, Bob Taylor named his son-in-law president of the company.
Marjorie, meanwhile, tended to their one, two, and finally three children. There were lake days with Mimi and Papa, three-week Christmas vacations in the sun, and annual drives to visit Perry’s extended family in Oxford, Mississippi. A lot of time was spent traveling to fast-pitch softball tournaments—Taylor, the middle child, was barely a teenager when she started getting noticed. (“Can’t believe she is being recruited in 8th grade,” Greene would write on her personal blog after a weekend at one university.)
As for Taylor Commercial, it was eventually bought by Marge and Perry. Financial-disclosure documents filed in 2020, when Greene first ran for office, reveal a company whose value ranged from $5 million to $25 million. There is a photograph that Greene cherishes: of her as a child smiling alongside her father at a construction site. Bob did not want his daughter to see her inheritance as a given; Greene has said that her father once fired her from a job she held at the company as a teenager. But now the girl in the photograph was chief financial officer of Taylor Commercial; her college sweetheart was its president; her family was by that point living in a tract mansion in Milton, which borders Alpharetta. Who could say, of course, how regularly she made use of the indoor pool, or marveled at the built-in aquarium on the terrace level—two features of this “smart-home luxury estate,” in the words of a recent listing. But she could at least enjoy the fact of them.
Another thing I do not know about Marjorie Taylor Greene: I do not know precisely how long it was before the shape of her life—the quiet, the respectability, the cadence of carpooling and root touch-ups—began to assume the dull cast of malaise. Perhaps it was during one of the many softball tournaments, another weekend spent crushed against the corner of an elevator at the Hilton Garden Inn by grass-stained girls and monogrammed bat bags. Perhaps her Age of Anxiety arrived instead on a quiet Tuesday in the office of her multimillion-dollar company, when it occurred to her that running this multimillion-dollar company just might not be her purpose after all.
What I do know, after dozens of conversations with Greene’s classmates and teachers, friends and associates, is that by the time she reached her late 30s, something in her had started to break.
IV.
Later, on the campaign trail, Greene would anchor much of her story in the fact that she was a longtime business owner: a woman who’d always more than held her own in the male-dominated world of construction. In beautifully shot television ads, voters saw a woman whose days were a relentless sprint between building sites—hard hats, reflector vests, jeans—and light-filled conference rooms, where she wore dresses with tasteful necklines and examined important blueprints.
That is not a fully accurate picture. People at Taylor Commercial seem to have liked Greene personally, but she spent only a few years on the job and did not put her stamp on the company. Call her on a weekday afternoon, and there was a good chance she’d answer from the gym. She had “nothing to do with” Taylor Commercial, one person familiar with the company’s operations told me. “It was entirely Perry.” A 2021 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitutionnoted that the Taylor Commercial website during those years scarcely hinted at Greene’s existence. The only flicker of acknowledgment came in the last line of Perry Greene’s bio, a reference to the wife and three children with whom he shared a home.
By 2011, the Journal-Constitution reported, Greene was no longer listed as the chief financial officer, or any other kind of officer. A year earlier, the company had been hit with state and county tax liens. Greene would one day joke about her lack of business acumen. But it doesn’t seem to have been terribly funny in the moment. Greene simply didn’t love the work. She had grown up with this business; she had gone to school for this business. And yet the girl in the photograph, as it turned out, had little interest in running this business.
Some people close to Greene would describe the ensuing dynamic—her own connection to the business weakening while her husband’s grew stronger—as a source of tension for the couple. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s path to Congress could perhaps be said to have begun here: when, in the aftermath of her tenure as CFO, she appeared determined to strike out in search of something to call her own.
In 2011, the same year she stepped away from her job, Greene decided to commit herself to Jesus Christ. Or recommit herself, perhaps. Last spring, Greene revealed, apparently for the first time publicly, that she was a “cradle Catholic,” born and raised in the Church. This disclosure was occasioned after Greene told Church Militant, a right-wing Catholic website, that efforts by bishops to aid undocumented immigrants reflected “Satan controlling the church.” In response, Bill Donohue of the conservative Catholic League demanded that Greene apologize. Greene felt moved thereafter to share the details of her own personal relationship with Catholicism, explaining that she had stopped attending Mass when she became a mother: when she’d “realized,” she said in a statement, “that I could not trust the Church leadership to protect my children from pedophiles, and that they harbored monsters even in their own ranks.”
Greene eventually decided to join North Point Community Church, one of the largest nondenominational Christian congregations in the country. And so during a service one Sunday, as applause and encouragement echoed across the sanctuary, Greene waited her turn to be immersed, blond hair tucked behind her ears, Chiclet-white teeth fixed in a nervous smile.
Many baptisms at North Point are accompanied by testimony, in which the congregant shares a brief word about her journey to Christ. Video of Greene’s testimony is no longer on the church’s website, but the journalist Michael Kruse described its key moments in an article for Politico. From the stage that morning, he wrote, Greene spoke about “the martyrs book,” meaning, I think, the Book of Martyrs, John Foxe’s 16th-century history and polemic on the persecution of Protestants under Queen Mary. As she’d considered the “conviction” of such men and women, “how they died for Christ,” Greene said, “I realized how small my faith was if I was scared to do a video and get baptized in front of thousands of people.” Before those thousands of people, she accepted Jesus as her lord and savior.
Greene’s congressional biography leaves the impression of deep and meaningful engagement with North Point, but according to a person in the church leadership, her involvement tapered off after several years. This person noted, somewhat ruefully, that Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state who defied President Donald Trump, has long been involved in North Point, but “no one ever asks me about him.”
V.
It was around this same time that Greene, as she later put it on a local radio show, “finally got brave enough” to step into a CrossFit gym. Greene’s original gym of choice had been the Alpharetta branch of Life Time. The gym, with its LifeSpa and LifeCafe, bills itself as a “luxury athletic resort,” and it’s easy to see how Greene might have tired of the ambience. She is not—has never been—the kind of biweekly gym-goer who walks for 45 minutes on the treadmill while watching Stranger Things on an iPad. In one of the few candid shots of Greene in her 11th-grade yearbook, she is flat on her back on a weight bench, lifting two heavy-looking dumbbells. “Marge Taylor pumps some Iron,” the caption reads.
In 2007, a workout partner at Life Time told Greene about CrossFit, a fitness regimen that combines Olympic weight lifting with calisthenics and interval training; it has long been popular among law enforcement and members of the military. The two women went on CrossFit.com and printed out the workout of the day, or “WOD,” in CrossFit parlance. This was, in the early years of CrossFit, how most newcomers engaged with the program, printing out the WOD and heading to their regular gym. By the end of that first WOD, Greene was sold. In 2011, she started going to the CrossFit gym in Alpharetta.
What Greene found at the gym (or “box,” as it is known) was community. The coaches, the members, the stragglers who popped in “just to see what this is all about”—they loved her. This is something many observers in Washington and elsewhere do not appreciate about Greene: that she can be extremely likable, so long as you are not, in her estimation, among “the swamp rat elites, spineless weak kneed Republicans, and the Radical Socialist Democrats who are the demise of this country that we all love and call home.” She has a sugary voice and a personable, generous affect; she is, when she wants to be, the sort of person whom a stranger might meet briefly and recall fondly to their friends as “just the nicest woman.” “The softer side of Marjorie Taylor Greene is what her friends, neighbors, and the people who elected her know,” Jamie Parrish, a Georgia Republican and close friend of Greene’s, told me. Her supporters back home can seem genuinely confused by her chilly or hostile portrayal and reception elsewhere.
At CrossFit, Greene’s warmth made her a star. “CrossFit’s really intimidating,” she explained in one radio interview. “Most people’s experience with CrossFit is … they run across ESPN, and they see these monster people doing crazy amazing things, and they’re usually like, ‘Ohhh, I’m never gonna do that.’ ” But Greene could put people at ease. When she started coaching classes herself, the reviews were stellar. “I loved working out with Marjorie Greene,” Carolyn Canouse, a former client, told me by email. “She was patient with my lack of athleticism, and always encouraging and supportive to everyone in the gym. She would bring her dog to work with her sometimes (he was adorable!), as well as her children who were all down to earth and nice to be around.”
Eric Yahnker
Greene trained on most days and competed in a workout challenge known as the CrossFit Open; at her peak, she was ranked 47th in the U.S. in her age group. Over time, she seemed to regard CrossFit less as a grounding for the rest of her life and more as an escape from it altogether.
When Greene was running for Congress, a man named Jim Chambers, jarred by her self-presentation as a paragon of family values, wrote about her alleged extramarital affairs at the gym in a Facebook post. (The New Yorker’s Charles Bethea later reported on text messages from Greene apparently confirming one of the affairs.) Her first alleged relationship was with a fellow trainer. Chambers, who owned one of the CrossFit boxes at which Greene coached, recalled viewing her initially as “this married lady who was at least nominally Christian, maybe not especially, but led a very suburban life. And then, like, quickly thereafter, she confessed that her marriage was on the rocks and falling apart.” According to Chambers, Greene made no secret of the affair with the trainer. She talked openly about her problems with Perry—“different lives and interests … typical stuff,” as Chambers summarized it. “She struck me as an extremely bored person,” he added. Later, Greene apparently had an affair with another man at CrossFit, a manager whom Chambers had recently hired from Colorado; this relationship, Chambers said, was more serious, more involved, “a real affair.” (Greene’s office did not respond to a list of questions about the alleged affairs and other matters.)
By March 2012, she and Perry had separated. Four months later, she filed for divorce. Two months after that, the couple reconciled.
The family appeared to resume its ordinary rhythms. By January, Perry was posting again on Tripadvisor. This was no small thing. Before the separation, he had been in the habit of reviewing, with great earnestness, establishments ranging from the local Melting Pot (“As stated this is a fondue restaurant, so it is very unique”) to the Cool Cat Cafe on Maui (“My family loves their burgers so much we have ‘Burger Sunday’ every Sunday as our family dinner”), only to go conspicuously dark during the sadness and tumult of 2012. But come the new year he was back, sharing his thoughts about the Encore, in Las Vegas (“Great ambience. Wife and I loved it!!!”), and an Italian restaurant in Alpharetta whose wine list, he judged, was “pretty good!”
Marjorie, meanwhile, worked with a personal coach in the hope of qualifying to compete in the international CrossFit Games. For the next two years, she would busy herself with his intense weekly prescriptions, all the while chronicling her experience on a WordPress blog. “Test post,” she began in April 2013. “I’m testing posting on my blog from my iPhone … See if this works.”
Scattered among the posts about creatine supplements (“I love that stuff”) and the iPhone footage of Greene’s triple jumps, there are glimmers to suggest that her family had found its way back. “I decided that I’m going to make a little home gym in my basement,” Greene wrote in May 2013. “This way, on days I’m not coaching I can train at home and be around my kids. My husband thinks it’s a great idea. Hopefully, they can see Mom working hard, and I can set a good example for them.” Six months later: “Just hanging around the house this weekend with my family, and I’m really happy with that.”
Much of the time, however, the blog posts suggest someone pinballing from aggressive cheerfulness (“Totally doing the happy dance!!”) to the “negative thoughts” that could rush in with no warning: “I wish there was a switch to turn off those thoughts.”
VI.
“Confidence is also an area that I struggle in,” Greene wrote in one of her blog posts. “But I’ve decided to say ‘why not me?’ ”
In 2013, she set out to become a businesswoman again. Partnering with Travis Mayer, a 22-year-old coach and one of the top CrossFit athletes in the world, Greene opened a 6,000-square-foot box called CrossFit Passion, on Roswell Street, in Alpharetta. Two years later, they relocated to a space nearly twice the size. In 2016, however, Greene sold her stake. She no longer blogged about her WODs or anything else related to CrossFit.
It’s unclear what prompted so abrupt a turnaround; Greene hasn’t discussed the subject publicly. “She would go through a really hard workout and then just stop in the middle of it and start crying,” a person who was close to Greene during this time told me. “And that started happening more regularly toward the end. It was just too much stress.” (Mayer, who went on to rename the gym United Performance, which he still owns and operates today, did not respond to requests for comment.)
The other thing that happened to Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2016 was Donald Trump. Greene’s family had never been especially political. Every fourth November, minus a cycle or two, Bob and Delle Taylor made sure to stop by the library or the First Baptist Church and cast a vote. It is reasonable to assume that the Taylors leaned right. For years, the family’s construction company was a major sponsor of the Atlanta libertarian Neal Boortz’s eponymous talk show. Boortz, one of the most popular radio personalities in America during the late 1990s and early 2000s, told me that Bob (who died in 2021) had been a good friend for decades. Still, the family did not give money to candidates, Republican or Democrat; they did not hold fundraisers at the house on Lake Lanier. For the Taylors, the 2016 presidential election commenced with no more fanfare than any other. On Super Tuesday, Bob, Delle, and Marjorie did not vote in either party’s primary. In fact, Marjorie had not voted since 2010.
Greene’s political origin story was not unlike that of millions of other Trump supporters. Despite having never hinted at an interest in politics, she found herself suddenly beguiled by a feeling, a conviction that despite the distance between Trump’s gold-plated world and her own, she knew exactly who he was. “He reminded me of most men I know,” she has said. “Men like my dad.”
In some ways, he was like her dad. Bob Taylor may not have been overtly partisan, but he rivaled Trump in his tendency to self-mythologize. In 2006, Greene’s father had published a novel with the small publisher Savas Beatie called Paradigm. As best I can tell, this is Taylor’s effort to demonstrate the value of a system he invented called the “Taylor Effect”—which purports to predict the stock market based on the gravitational fluctuations of Earth—in the form of a high-stakes international caper. The story follows twin scientists who discover an ancient Egyptian box in the bowels of the Biltmore estate, the contents of which, they soon realize, could “destroy many of the world’s most powerful families” if ever made public.
He considered his stock-market theory to be “the Genuine Article”; in the afterword, he likened himself to da Vinci, Galileo, Edison, Marconi, and the Wright brothers. “History,” he wrote, “is filled with characters who endured ridicule, imprisonment, and even death because they discovered things we know today with absolute certainty to be true.” Suzanne Thompson, a North Carolina author hired to help Taylor write Paradigm, recalls that Taylor had “a bit of an exalted sense of himself.” She was unaware that he was Marjorie Taylor Greene’s father, and gasped with dismay when I told her. “Oh my gosh, I had no idea. Oh my God.”
Although Greene’s political awakening was sudden, she would later portray her support for Trump as the unveiling of a well-formed political identity that she’d had no choice but to keep hidden. “I’ve always had strong feelings about politics, but when you’re a business owner, you have to really, really be careful about what you say,” she told a conservative YouTube vlogger in 2019. But when she sold her gym, “something magically happened to me: I didn’t have to worry about what members thought anymore.”
Greene may now have felt free to speak, but it was not clear what she wanted to say. It was clear only that she wanted to say something. It was as though she spent the first six months of Trump’s administration gathering up the scattered feelings and dim instincts that informed her attraction to his brand of politics and examining them under a microscope, twisting the knob until the edges came into focus. By July 2017, Greene was ready to start posting about politics.
She headed to American Truth Seekers, a now-defunct fringe-right website run by a New York City public-school counselor who went by the name Pat Rhiot. The contents of Greene’s earliest posts have been lost to the ether, but the headlines, archived by the Wayback Machine, summarize the brand Greene set out to establish from the very beginning: “Caitlyn Jenner Considering What?” was the first headline, followed over the next few days by “Female Genital Mutilation: America’s Dirty Little Secret” and “Exposed! Confidential Memo to Take Down Trump and Silence Conservatives!”
By August, when the full text of many of her blog posts become available, she was establishing her fierce devotion to gun rights and Donald Trump, and her antipathy toward conventional Republican politicians:
MAGA means get rid of our ridiculous embarrassing massive $20 Trillion dollar DEBT you put us in!! … You see we elected Donald Trump because he is NOT one of you, a politician. He is a business man, and a VERY successful one. WE elected him because he clearly knows how to manage business and money because we all know he has made plenty of it. Oh but not you people!
September saw her going after Hillary Clinton:
You know how we all have that one friend or family member that shows up to the party uninvited and just causes non-stop drama? They lie and make up stories and shift blame to everyone and everything, but constantly refuse to accept reality or the fact that maybe it’s their own fault. They ruin the party and make everyone miserable with all the crap they blubber out of their mouths, while they try to push their agenda on everyone and no one wants it. Yep Hillary. Can she just go away? Can she just go to jail?
Greene’s posts, by the standards of the 2017 far-right blogosphere, were more or less the usual fare, nothing terribly new or uniquely provocative. But Greene, in her brief time posting, had already picked up on something remarkable: People liked that she was ordinary. In the present landscape of conservative politics, ordinariness was a branding opportunity. Ordinariness ensured that even her most banal reflections would sparkle. Ordinariness allowed Greene to offer conservatives what the Alex Joneses couldn’t: affirmation that your neighborhood “full-time mom” and “female business owner” and “patriot” was fed up too. In the fall of 2017, Greene created a new Facebook page exclusively for the dissemination of her political thoughts.
The Republican base was in the market for a Marjorie Taylor Greene—a suburban woman who not only didn’t recoil from Trump but was full-throated MAGA. All over the internet, it seemed, were women who claimed to be conservative and yet could do nothing but choke on their pearls and complain about Trump’s tweets. But now here was regular Marge, who would put America first. Sweet southern Marge, who loved “family, fitness, travel, shooting, fun, and adventure,” and who, as would soon be clear, wanted very much to save the children.
VII.
Perhaps, decades fromnow, what will stand out most is how easily the dominoes fell.
Imagine it like this: #SaveTheChildren, right there at the top of the feed. You click on the hashtag—because who, given the choice, would not want to save the children?—and then, suddenly, you are looking with new eyes at the chevron Wayfair rug beneath your feet. It had been 40 percent off during the Presidents’ Day sale, but now you’re wondering: Had this one been used to transport a child, a trafficked innocent rolled up inside? And then not 10 clicks later you find yourself wondering about other things, too—other conspiracies, other dark forces. Because it is curious, now that you’re here, now that you’re wondering, that you can’t recall any CCTV footage of the airplane as it hit the Pentagon on 9/11. You had gone online to check if Theresa had posted photos from the baby shower and now, 20 minutes later, you log off with an entirely new field of vision, the unseen currents of the world suddenly alive.
Perhaps, for Marjorie Taylor Greene, the rug had been houndstooth and the baby shower had been Kerrie’s. But you don’t need the site-by-site search history to understand the narrative of Greene’s descent into QAnon, because the basics are so often the same.
QAnon followers subscribe to the sprawling conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by a network of satanic pedophiles funded by Saudi royalty, George Soros, and the Rothschild family. Though Republican officials have insisted that QAnon’s influence among the party’s base is overstated, former President Trump has come to embrace the movement plainly, closing out rallies with music nearly identical to the QAnon theme song, “WWG1WGA” (the initials stand for the group’s rallying cry, “Where we go one, we go all”). Yet since its inception, in the fall of 2017, when “Q,” an anonymous figure professing to be a high-level government official, began posting tales from the so-called deep state, no politician has become more synonymous with QAnon than Greene. To an extent, Greene had already signaled her attraction to conspiracy theories, questioning on American Truth Seekers whether the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was a false-flag operation to eliminate gun rights. But with Q, Greene was all in. She has gone so far as to endorse an unhinged QAnon theory called “frazzledrip,” which claims that Hillary Clinton murdered a child as part of a satanic blood ritual.
Ramon Aponte, a right-wing blogger known as “The Puerto Rican Conservative,” became friendly with Greene soon after she began posting about Pizzagate, the conspiracy theory that a Washington, D.C., restaurant was involved in a Democratic-run child-sex ring. “Even though the mainstream news media ‘debunked’ it, nobody ever conducted an investigation on it,” Aponte told me. “And Marjorie Taylor Greene knew this … She was a voice for the silent majority.” (After a North Carolina man’s armed raid of the restaurant, in December 2016, Washington police did, in fact, investigate, and pronounced the theory “fictitious.”)
Was Greene a true believer? Her early outpouring of breathless posts gives that strong impression—she comes across as a convert intoxicated by revelation. But in time, her affiliation with QAnon brought undeniable advantages. It was not until she latched on to Q and Q-adjacent theories that Greene’s political profile achieved scale and velocity. The deeper she plunged, the larger her following grew. And the more confident she became.
As the months passed, she started experimenting with a new tone; she would still be regular Marge and sweet southern Marge, but she would also be Marge who told the “aggressive truth”—who wasn’t afraid to be real. In Facebook videos posted from 2017 to 2019, Greene talked about the “Islamic invasion into our government offices.” She said: “Let me explain something to you, ‘Mohammed’ … What you people want is special treatment, you want to rise above us, and that’s what we’re against.” She talked about how it was “gangs”—“not white people”—who were responsible for holding back Black and Hispanic men. She objected to the removal of Confederate statues, saying: “But that doesn’t make me a racist … If I were Black people today, and I walked by one of those statues, I would be so proud, because I’d say, ‘Look how far I’ve come in this country.’ ” The most “mistreated group” in America, she went on to say, was “white males.”
Illustration by Eric Yahnker. Source image: Marjorie Taylor Greene / YouTube.
By the end of 2018, Marjorie Taylor Greene was awash in validation. Especially from men. She found herself suddenly fielding marriage proposals in the comments beneath her selfies. “Ok ok ok so you’re totally gorgeous I got that the first time I saw u,” one person wrote, “but you seal the deal with what’s in your head, I love the message of truth u bring and inform all who will listen I’M SOLD!!!” Greene, as she often would upon reading such comments, clicked the “Like” button in response.
Greene began to meet up with people from her Facebook circle. In March 2019, she traveled to Washington, D.C., as the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on restrictive gun legislation. At one point, in a now-infamous confrontation, Greene began following David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida. The shooting had left 17 dead, and Hogg had come to Washington to make the case for gun-control measures. Wearing a black blazer and leggings, a pink Michael Kors tote slung over her shoulder, Greene accosted the 18-year-old and, with a friend capturing the encounter on video, badgered him about his support for the bill: “You don’t have anything to say for yourself? You can’t defend your stance? How did you get over 30 appointments with senators? How’d you do that? How did you get major press coverage on this issue?” Hogg walked on in silence as Greene continued: “You know if school zones were protected with security guards with guns, there would be no mass shootings at schools. Do you know that? The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”
Greene would later trace her decision to run for office to the frustration she’d felt during that trip: No one had paid her any attention. That would have to change. As she posted on a website called The Whiskey Patriots just after the Hogg incident, and just before she launched her bid for Congress: “Let the war begin …”
VIII.
She ran and she won, of course, in Georgia’s Fourteenth District, in a largely rural outpost in the northwest corner of the state. Voters did not seem to care that Greene, who had judged the solidly conservative area to be friendlier to her chances than her home district in suburban Atlanta, had never actually lived there.
Shortly after she was sworn into office, in January 2021, her harassment of Hogg, as well as old social-media posts in which she endorsed the claim that the Parkland shooting was a false-flag operation, surfaced into public view. In her maiden speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, she set out to blunt the criticism she was receiving. Much of the speech was a disavowal of her own past statements. She conceded, for example, that 9/11 had actually happened, and that not all QAnon posts were accurate. “I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true,” she protested.
As for David Hogg, she recounted an episode at her own high school when, she said, the “entire school” had been taken hostage by a gunman—an episode that she continues to invoke as a touchstone to explain everything that is wrong about security in schools and how she has a right to browbeat a school-shooting survivor like Hogg. But if her account failed to engender much sympathy, it was because it only nominally resembled reality.
On a September morning in 1990, during Greene’s junior year, a history teacher named Johnny Tallant was holding his class at South Forsyth High School when an armed sophomore entered the classroom next door, fired a rifle overhead, and marched the students there into Tallant’s classroom; for the next few hours, the sophomore held some 40 of his classmates, and Tallant, at gunpoint. The hostages later said they were initially terrified; the student threatened to kill them if his demands for candy, soda, and a school bus were not met. Eventually their nerves quieted. Many of the students knew their captor at least somewhat, and they weren’t altogether surprised when he put down his gun and began sharing with them “everything that was going on in his head,” as one hostage recalled. “He said he wanted to get away from things and make a point,” recalled another, adding that the student had repeatedly promised not to hurt them. “He said his parents were mean, that he was tired of how they treated him, and that he had no friends and just wanted to get away.” Gradually, as police delivered the snacks he’d asked for, the sophomore let most of the hostages go, including all the girls but one, who knew the student well and stayed behind to keep talking to him. Five hours in, when the remaining hostages moved to grab his gun, he did not resist; when the police burst in moments later, he did not fight back.
Tallant recalls that Greene reached out to him sometime before she launched her bid for Congress, in the spring of 2019. He had no idea who she was, or why she was calling him at home. He listened that day as the unfamiliar woman explained that she wanted to speak with him about the events of 1990—that she’d been a student at South Forsyth when everything happened. Still, Tallant struggled to place her. Greene had not been in his classroom. Everyone else at the school, including Greene, had been quickly evacuated and bused away. Tallant was taken aback by Greene’s intensity, her apparently sudden need, decades later, to discover flaws in the school’s handling of things: “She was asking me some crazy questions about—she was saying we should have had guns ourselves, you know … She sounded like kind of a nut.”
Tallant would not give her what she wanted. “I told her right off, we didn’t need guns,” he said. It wasn’t a political statement; for Tallant, it was just reality—the only conclusion you could draw if you took care to examine the particulars of the crisis, of the teenage boy at the center of it. The sophomore was known by classmates and teachers to struggle with seizures and other symptoms of epilepsy. As one of the hostages later put it: “I wasn’t scared of him. I was scared of what the police would do when he stepped into the hall, and I was afraid of what the police were planning to do as he walked from the room to the bus.”
But never mind. Greene hung up with Tallant and eventually proceeded with her preferred version of the story in her speech on the House floor: “You see, school shootings are absolutely real,” Greene said, her navy face mask emblazoned with the words FREE SPEECH in red letters. “I understand how terrible it is because when I was 16 years old, in 11th grade, my school was a gun-free school zone, and one of my schoolmates brought guns to school and took our entire school hostage.”
“I know the fear that David Hogg had that day,” she pronounced. “I know the fear that these kids have.”
Did it even matter that Greene had not been taken hostage, or that the episode had been handled wisely and without bloodshed, or that the teacher in the classroom had told her she was wrong about her memories and her conclusions? By now, it may have occurred to Greene that performance was enough. That politics might in fact be that easy—as long as you were angry, or at least good at acting like it, most people wouldn’t bother to look beneath the hood.
IX.
In late September 2022, Perry Greene filed for divorce from Marjorie Taylor Greene on the grounds that the marriage was “irretrievably broken.” His timing—so close to the midterm election—did not go unnoticed in Georgia political circles. Six weeks later, on November 8, Marjorie easily won reelection to her second term in the House of Representatives.
Given her popularity among a segment of the Republican base, she is certain to play a major role in the GOP leadership, whether that role comes with a specific title and assignment or not. She wields power much like Donald Trump, doing or saying the unthinkable because she knows that most of her colleagues wouldn’t dare jeopardize their own future to stop her.
What Marjorie Taylor Greene has accomplished is this: She has harnessed the paranoia inherent in conspiratorial thinking and reassured a significant swath of voters that it is okay—no, righteous—to indulge their suspicions about the left, the Republican establishment, the media. “I’m not going to mince words with you all,” she declared at a Michigan rally this fall. “Democrats want Republicans dead, and they’ve already started the killings.” Greene did not create this sensibility, but she channels it better than any of her colleagues.
In her speech at the Cobb County GOP breakfast, Greene bemoaned “the major media organizations” for creating a caricature of her “that’s not real” without ever, she said, giving her the chance to speak for herself. Afterward, I introduced myself, noted what she had just said, and asked if she was willing to sit down for an interview. “Oh,” she said, “you’re the one that’s going around trying to talk to [all my friends]. This is the first time you’ve actually tried to talk to me.” I explained that I had tried but had been repeatedly turned away by her staff. “Yeah, because I’m not interested,” she snapped. “You’re a Democrat activist.” Some of her supporters looked on, nodding with vigor.
Whether Greene actually believes the things she says is by now almost beside the point. She has no choice but to be the person her followers think she is, because her power is contingent on theirs. The mechanics of actual leadership—diplomacy, compromise, patience—not only don’t interest her but represent everything her followers disdain. To soften, or engage in better faith, is to admit defeat.
I think often of Greene’s blog post from July 26, 2014, and the question she posed to herself during her crisis of confidence. “Why not me?” she had written tentatively, trying it on for size. I think of it whenever I see Greene onstage, on YouTube, on the House floor, making performance art of rage and so clearly at ease with what she is. Were the question not in writing, I’m not sure I’d believe there was a time in her life when she’d been afraid to ask.
This article appears in the January/February 2023 print edition with the headline “Why Is She Like This?”